|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 25, 2014 21:12:08 GMT -6
Just for comparison, how do the DDG-51s stack up in terms of illuminators?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 25, 2014 22:10:08 GMT -6
Just for comparison, how do the DDG-51s stack up in terms of illuminators? Three, one on top of the bridge and two aft, behind the Phalanx gun mount. Type 99 illuminators. Here is a picture. Now we need to examine the pictures of the Chinese ship.
Attachment Deleted
As I look at the picture of the Kunming, It appears that it has one illuminator on a pedestal looking forward. However, there has to be at least one aft, possibly two. I don't see anything that resembles an illuminator. Problem is that I don't know exactly what their illuminator might look like. It is possible, looking at the drawing that the two small radomes on the structure just forward of the aft VLS, one on the port and one starboard side could be the illuminators.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 26, 2014 10:10:43 GMT -6
In doing some research, the missile HQ-9 system in the land version is six four round tube launchers linked to one engagement radar. This missile needs command guidance during its tracking phase, to stay on target until the active seeker locks on. In the land version, four batteries are supported by one engagement radar or tracking radar. So, its 24 tubes times four or 96 tubes controlled by one engagement radar. However, it doesn't mean you can fire them all at one time. I researching the HT-233 engagement radar which is a derivative of the Russian 30N6E Flap lid system.
There are conflicting reports that the missile is SAHR or semi-active homing which would require an illuminator.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 26, 2014 12:26:21 GMT -6
Just for information, an illuminator maintains the target within its radar beam during the engagement. The missile receives the reflected energy and tracks towards the maneuvering target. It uses the Doppler shift between the front antenna and the rear antenna to perform the tracking. On airborne systems the fire control radar is the illuminator, the CW transmitter timesharing with the main radar beam. On ground or naval systems, the illuminator is usually separate on a gimbaled mount. You would need one aft and one forward. The question still remains as to whether those missiles are SAHR or INS/Data link.
Update: The HHQ-9A is a navalised version of the HQ-9. It has an optional SARH but the information for tracking is gather by the missile and sent to the ship and then it is correlated.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 27, 2014 9:20:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 28, 2014 16:34:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 29, 2014 9:25:26 GMT -6
Wargaming can illuminate problems and help to develop tactics, but as we have found, it isn't reality. It doesn't include how the enemy will react or how our crews will operate. It can't predict equipment problems or effectiveness. You've played wargames, how often do you think you are on target with the results. The development of the LCS came from wargaming the requirements and then developing specifications to match those requirements. Remember that the Naval War College is also political, it is subject to the needs of the Navy in Congress so it is no wonder, that the results match the Navy requirements right now. I don't mean to sound negative, just experience tells me that the Navy will use the wargame results to gain its budget requirements in Congress. It did this in the interwar period and continued through the Cold War. War Plan Orange was primarily a budgeting tool, not an executable plan. However, the general trend and requirements for the Pacific War came from the wargaming of War Plan Orange. I suspect we are following that same trend now. All this being said, it is good that the NWC is continuing to game this new technology in hopes that they can discover some operational issues and possibly provide new specifications to the modules to be carried, crews and many other details. However, only combat teaches.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 7, 2014 19:17:20 GMT -6
I was mainly focusing on the development of tactics in posting that link. The problem I have with some of the LCS projections - and those involving other military units such as the F-22 - is that they're too hidebound in what one might call the old way of doing things. They don't account for some of the new capabilities these platforms bring to the game and attempt to exploit them to full effect. This here is an interesting item. Anyone care to imagine if some time down the road there might be a railgun module designed for the LCS? news.yahoo.com/u-navy-test-futuristic-super-fast-gun-sea-202608368--sector.html
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 7, 2014 19:59:18 GMT -6
I was mainly focusing on the development of tactics in posting that link. The problem I have with some of the LCS projections - and those involving other military units such as the F-22 - is that they're too hidebound in what one might call the old way of doing things. They don't account for some of the new capabilities these platforms bring to the game and attempt to exploit them to full effect. This here is an interesting item. Anyone care to imagine if some time down the road there might be a railgun module designed for the LCS? news.yahoo.com/u-navy-test-futuristic-super-fast-gun-sea-202608368--sector.htmlNavies, are traditionally conservative, as they should be. They are operating with the lives of our kids. So, don't expect any new doctrine to come out of the LCS program. The NWC will game out operational warfighting, but the admirals will fall back on tradition. Remember that the US Navy has been a blue water force for over 100 years or more. Returning to littoral zones and brown water will take some time to adjust to. They will treat this weapon as an overgrown, motor torpedo boat, which it isn't. They didn't like the MTB's and they don' like the LCS's. Such is the way of the traditional navy. I do have hope. I think this weapon could be useful in many ways, but the doctrine has to be tailored to it. The rail gun is a nice pop gun, might be interesting to equip the LCS's with that weapon. That might give them a real edge in a knife fight.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 8, 2014 10:16:12 GMT -6
Littoral Combat Ship Doctrine Let's talk doctrine and tactics. The LCS was created, as we know, to operate in the littoral or brown water zone. As you know better than I, this is a transition region between the shallower waters of inlet's and bays to the open ocean. It is a prime area for mines, diesel submarines and small surface boats with missiles.
So what is doctrine? It should be an easy question to answer, but it is remarkable that most students of military history do not understand the concept. Doctrine is designed to simplify command and control. It is dull, as John Parshall states. As he defines it, "doctrine is just Procedures you've got to follow." But doctrine can stifle creativity something the US military and the nation itself, prides itself on; it's individuality and ability to improvise. This has been the hallmark of the US military since the Continental Army. Dr. Wayne Hughes in his excellent book on Fleet Tactics states that doctrine is the intellectual glue that holds tactics together. It is more than what is written in the manual; it is the corpus of guiding principles that warriors believe in and act on.
I only bring up this rather dull subject of doctrine to ensure that we understand that there is a vast difference between the LCS's missions; ASW, ASUW, MCM and the naval doctrine that these missions will have to be shoehorned into. Yes, the Navy has been executing these three missions for ages, probably since the advent of the submarine at the turn of the 20th century, but that was in a blue water environment, not a littoral zone environment. The US Navy's most extensive enclosed sea and littoral zone operation was Guadalcanal and we know how that worked out. The Navy struggled for six months or longer as they moved up the Solomon's chain towards Rabaul. I can foresee a similar result in the future with the LCS's.
The problem for the LCS's is their weaponry and sensors essentially the mission packages. The hulls are excellent but without the mission packages, they are just overgrown powerboats. Its their packages that fits them into Naval doctrine, not the hulls. The mission packages are weak and four years behind with a lot of cost overruns. I honestly don't see how you can test these hulls in the far east where some are deployed with weak mission packages. You cannot integrate these weapons systems into your new doctrine unless they are fully capable. This means sufficiently trained personnel, adequate numbers of mission packages to develop the necessary tactics and doctrine for the Navy. This is the defining moment in this ships development. The Navy must get these ships fully manned, fully equipped and begin full integration into the Navy battle groups. Just sailing around the seas, watching for stranded sailors and helping victims of natural disasters is not how to develop naval doctrine to fit these ships missions.
UPDATE: I think you posted this link, but I wanted to ensure it. news.usni.org/2013/03/25/opinion-navy-doesnt-know-what-it-wants-with-lcs
I am in agreement the admiral. The Navy needs weapons, not toys. Building a system, then trying to figure out how to shoehorn it into your doctrine is not the way the Navy has worked.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 10, 2014 13:20:09 GMT -6
One of the more interesting items is the difference in how each nation such as Turkey and Israel will use this LCS.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 12, 2014 6:11:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2014 7:26:12 GMT -6
The Mock-up looks more like the CSS Virginia than a guided missile cruiser. I'll bet the real deal costs the Chinese government a pretty penny. With some of their current financial issues, I wonder how many they can actually build, outfit and deploy? Greater size doesn't ensure greater capability, just more power needed to move it with greater fuel costs etc. It also makes for a better target.
The more I examine a map of the Far East, and the nations surrounding the Chinese, the more I see deja-vu from the pre-WW1 naval arms race and its results in the actual war. The German fleet was built as a fleet in being, not really for actual combat, just a sort of bargaining chip. I wonder.......
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 12, 2014 9:46:30 GMT -6
Yeah, I'm not so confident that we'll be seeing that hull anytime soon. I wouldn't compare the timescale to that of the carrier mockup behind it; there they were working from a completed hull and primarily using it to practice deck operations with existing aircraft. Presumably they'd use the "cruiser" primarily to test radars, missile launchers, and defensive systems. That's a more technically involved process than deck-spotting and touch-and-gos, plus you're talking about a platform that will be built from scratch versus one that the Russians sold you.
The stated firepower is a little overblown. Both the Ticos and KDX-IIIs have 128 VLS cells, and are smaller vessels.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2014 10:30:39 GMT -6
Yeah, I'm not so confident that we'll be seeing that hull anytime soon. I wouldn't compare the timescale to that of the carrier mockup behind it; there they were working from a completed hull and primarily using it to practice deck operations with existing aircraft. Presumably they'd use the "cruiser" primarily to test radars, missile launchers, and defensive systems. That's a more technically involved process than deck-spotting and touch-and-gos, plus you're talking about a platform that will be built from scratch versus one that the Russians sold you. The stated firepower is a little overblown. Both the Ticos and KDX-IIIs have 128 VLS cells, and are smaller vessels. If this new ship is just a scaled up guided missile destroyer that they have just commissioned, it wouldn't be that difficult. Here is a photo broadside on the type 52d. Now, compare that with the drawing on your link. It isn't that big of a stretch, is it. Just longer, wider beam and probably a higher draught for blue water.
defence.pk/threads/pla-navy-type-052d-destroyer-in-first-sea-trial.276344/
UPDATE: I found a drawing of the type 55D - Attachment Deleted
|
|